From merope@Radix.Net Mon Jan 8 13:24:40 2001 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:24:38 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Like herding cats...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Sunday 7 January 2001: Ellen Pack notes that although she's "enjoyed tremendously reading about AARP and the Bo Peep thing" she's curious as to whether they are going to vote on Motion 00-40 [temporary SEC chair]. She reminds Tim Stowell that there has been no discussion since the floor was opened for discussion a week ago." Rich Howland says he is not clear on how they will implement the "minority opinion" sections of the report and how they handle it if a slate of candidates is not approved or if there are not enough volunteers to fill the committee or represent all regions. He asks "Are we going to have a Minority Chair and Majority Chair? Or is one Chair and one Vice Chair?" [If this seems like grasping at straws, it probably is.] Shari Handly notes that "no need for Minority and Majority anything. The ESC put the report together, showing the minority opinions, but with the understanding that it was the majority opinions that we would recommend implementing." She points out that if the Board does not approve a slate of committee members a new chair will be selected but the volunteers can remain in the pool. She states "This should not be a complicated thing. Let's accomplish this one little task without turning and twisting and microscopically dissecting it until it becomes impossible to manage." She calls for a vote. Rich Howland asks Shari where the "understanding" she spoke of is "listed". He points that the motion the Board passed was to implement the Election Study Committee report in its entirety and notes "There is no understanding there!!!!" Maggie Stewart tells Shari she is wrong and "When the AB passed the motion to "accept and implement" the ESC report that means the report in it's entirity has to be followed." She reminds Shari that this is the sections of the report should have been voted on separately and she recommends "that something of this magnitude in it's effect on the project should be voted on formally by the entire project." Ellen points out that "It would be a bit difficult to hold a national election about an election committee, if we can't get an election committee together to hold and monitor an election." She reminds the group that the establishing the EC is the Board's responsibility and that project members can have their say through their elected representatives. She says "The Board accepted the report in it's entirety, respectfully recognizing there were minority opinions, but that they were just that - minority opinions. Common sense dictates we only implement the majority opinion, especially since it is not stated otherwise, within the report itself...There's no need to make a federal case out of this." She calls for a vote. Maggie responds to Ellen, noting that "Seems folks just want to do what they want regardless of what the USGenWeb general population want. Why even bother to vote?" She believed that the Board members serve the entire the USGW population, not just AB members and special committee members. She reminds the Board that it would not implement her alternate logos without a full membership vote and asks "Does this mean that alternate logos are more important than the elections within USGenWeb?" Ellen gives Maggie a lesson in representative democracy, noting "They elect you to vote on their behalf, when they cannot vote. If you're not sure how they feel, you can contact them, and get some feedback prior to casting your vote. That's up to you." She also reminds her that the bylaws do give the AB the responsibility for establishing the EC and notes "If you would like to hold a general election so the general membership can do our job for us, go for it. Submit a motion to that effect. But I hardly think it necessary, or appropriate in lieu of the ByLaws." Pam Reid goes on record as agreeing with Ellen on this issue, and notes "For almost as long as I can remember, the Board has been ineffective because of our fear of making an unpopular decision. It is my opinion that the reason we are here is to make some decisions on behalf of the Project...We are the representatives of the Project membership and are here to serve as representatives. It isn't practical to put every issue to a vote before the total group." Maggie asks Pam if she is saying that "the EC is not an important enough issue to bring it before the membership". She notes the EC is "the very basis of the projects leadership." Maggie says she can imagine herself making an effort "to vote on a change or alteration to something that directly effects the running of the government." She says "This is not something I feel should be done by representatives. This needs to be something that everyone agrees on in the project." She also suggests that the "election" does not need to be formal but that simple vote counts from state coordinator would be sufficient [oh boy, what a can of worms that would open...] Ginger Hayes notes that Maggie's concern for the USGW population is "rich" coming from her and notes "Seems like I remember a time when you were willing to see the Archives delinked rather than work with a part of the USGenWeb population." She agrees with Ellen and Shari that there's no need to blow this out of proportion and wonders "if some are suddenly concerned that we might have a fair election around here." Ginger also gives Maggie a brief refresher course in representative democracy. Pam suggests that since the Board members "are the representatives of the Project membership and should be making decisions based on that. If we want to poll our constiuents prior to casting a vote, fine...But, unless the resolution of an issue requires a Bylaws...change, the issue should be resolved here." Tina Vickery asks Tim Stowell to call for a vote on Motion 00-40. Rich Howland requests "that we deal with this boondoggle before continuing to ignore this mess that has been passed." He notes that "we passed a motion to make two ECs...It would be best if we fix this before we pass something else that we have to backup and fix." Shari points out to Maggie that she is "trying to go back and change a vote we've already taken. We've already voted to accept the ESC's report and implement it...What we're doing now is deciding WHO the temporary chair will be. Not *whether* there will be a temporary chair. Not *whether* we should implement the report of the ESC." Shari reminds Rich Howland that they did not pass a motion to establish two committees and that issue was explained to him during the discussion period for the motion to accept the ESC report. She notes "However, we as a body generally never let common sense get in our way, now do we?" She again calls for a vote. Monday 8 January 2001: Tim Stowell calls for vote on Motion 00-40, to appoint Linda Haas Davenport as temporary chair of the Standing Election Committee. Thus far, seven Board members have voted "yes". Ellen Pack forwards a message from a constituent to the Board. It reads in part: "As I read through the posts to this board, I am truly disheartened. This board claimed that they were going to get things done. There are only a few that seem to be concerned with accomplishing *anything* here. And it is those same folks that are getting slammed continuously. Holly Timm, Tina Vickery, and some others on the board are trying to set up a *fair* election committee...Gee, fair elections, that's a novel idea...I though this was a group of adults trying to "lead" a national project! All I see are a few adults trying to call for a vote and the little children stamping their feet and throwing a tantrum cuz the kids don't like the rules...If it weren't for the people that appreciate the work of of so many CC's like myself, I and a quite a few others might turn and walk away from this entire mess!!...Some, unfortunately for the project, already have...When will the rest of you on the board grow up?????? Inquiring minds would like to know....." === "A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." ---Douglas Adams This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Tue Jan 9 14:12:35 2001 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:12:34 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Think of it as therapy...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Monday 8 January 2001: Voting proceeds on Motion 00-40. 9 Board members have voted "yes". Richard Howland notes that RRoO appears to "muddy the intent" of Motion 00-36 [to accept and implement the ESC report]. In order to "clarify the intent of the passing of 00-36 without undoing the progress made with its passing including the present vote on 00-40" he moves to "amend Ginger's motion 00-36 by striking out "Election Study Committee" and inserting "Majority Report of the Election Study Committee Re-Submitted 8 January 2001" and adding the words "and only receive the Minority report" To read "I move that the report known as the Majority Report of the Election Study Committee Re-Submitted 8 January 2001 be accepted in it's entirety and that the recommendations of the committee be accepted and implemented and only receive the Minority Report." [URLs to a minority and majority version of the ESC report are given: http://www.timmweb.pair.com/esc/majority.html, http://www.timmweb.pair.com/esc/minority.html] In short order, Ellen Pack seconds Rich's motion, Tina Vickery calls the question, and Holly thanks Tina, noting that she sees no reason to drag this out. [If this whole thing sounds a little orchestrated, be not surprised. It was. Apparently there was some concern that someone would later challenge election results by claiming that the EC was improperly formed.] Teri Pettit gives the group a grammar lesson, noting that "I don't like being picky about grammar in informal communications, but when we're recording something for posterity, it behooves us to pay more attention to the niceties." [Civics and grammar in one week! Bet the Board members never thought they'd get a free trip back to grade school.] Tina says she is "happy tonight on two counts," because 1) the work and dedication of the ESC is recognized and acknowledged"; and 2) "that so many cared about the process to facilitate this motion, and second, and call of the question that is before us." She called the question in order to move the process forward and to to assure "to some degree the practice for fair elections into the future." She again thanks the ESC for their effort. Maggie Stewart thanks Rich for his amendment. Tuesday 9 January 2001: Tim Stowell calls for a vote on Motion 01-1, to amend Motion 00-36. Thus far, 6 Board members have voted "yes". === "Why do the wicked always form groups, whereas the righteous do not? Because the wicked, walking in darkness, need company, but the righteous, who live in light, do not fear being alone." ---Unknown This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Wed Jan 10 13:23:44 2001 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:23:40 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Getting the show on the road...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Tuesday 9 January 2001: Voting proceeds on Motion 01-1. Thus far, 14 Board members have voted "yes". Voting proceeds on Motion 00-40. Thus far, 11 Board members have voted "yes". Wednesday 19 January 2001: Tim Stowell announces that Motion 00-40 has passed with 12 yes votes. He asks Holly Timm to forward the list of volunteers to Linda Haas Davenport so she can begin to select members for the committee. Tim announces that Motion 01-1 has passed with 14 yes votes. [and still no answer to Shari's question about Esther Frye's qualifications for the Board Secretary position.] === Getting It Right Corner: We've heard through the grapevine that the USGenWeb Census Project [http://www.us-census.org] has just adopted bylaws, and they appear to have done quite a nice job of it. The bylaws are available at: http://www.us-census.org/bylaws.html. === "To err is human, but when the eraser wears out ahead of the pencil, you're overdoing it." ---Josh Jenkins This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sat Jan 13 13:15:13 2001 Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 13:15:06 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: Leap before you look...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Wednesday 10 January 2001: Richard Howland informs the group that he's trying to set up a dinner get-together at the GenTech conference on Saturday 3 February. He asks anyone who plans to come and is interested to get in touch with him. [There's been no Board-L traffic since then. We apologize for our absence the last few days; we were unavoidably away from the computer. But it doesn't look like we missed much.] === Deafening Silence Corner: Our Readers may recall that a couple of weeks ago we wrote about our own Esteemed National Coordinator's apparent violation of copyright when he posted an improperly attributed copyrighted work without the author's position all over creation. The author wrote to him and apparently to select Board members as well asking to have the misattribution corrected, but to no avail. This morning we found slipped under our door a message apparently sent from the author to Holly Timm. The message reads in part: "It has now been ten days since I wrote to you. No response has been received from anyone at USGW. It is with great frustration and sadness that I write this message. Since December 24, 2000 when Stowell posted copies of my copyrighted article to multiple maillists, and since December 26, 2000 when I wrote to him (and others) asking for a correction, I have received no response...From December 26th, until December 29th, I wrote Mr. Stowell, the Georgia Regional Coordinators, the list administrators of STATE-COORD, USGENWEB-all, NDGENWEB, WIGEN. On January 3rd I wrote you as the Representative at Large. Other than a copy of your message to Board-Exec, I have received no response from anyone at USGW. The inevitable conclusion is that Tim Stowell, and by extension, the Advisory Board of USGW, various list administrators of USGW, and indeed, everyone connected with USGW are indifferent to copyright laws, ethical considerations, or even common courtesy...It is now my duty to warn my fellow internet genealogists about USGW. These breaches of good taste by the leadership of USGW indicate a serious problem. The total lack of concern about copyright infringement indicate a mendaciousness which should not go unobserved. An organization without scruple deserves no support from either the internet or the genealogical communities, or from its hosts. It is my intention to bring to the internet a warning to anyone who might be considering donating material to USGW, or to anyone who has already donated material, that the USGW does not abide by its copyright statement, its by-laws or its stated principles." Wow, strong words. But good for her. If our Esteemed National Coordinator is going to serve as our ambassador to the community, it might behoove him to answer his email [or even read it] once in a while. === "A man is not honest simply because he never had a chance to steal." ---Yiddish Proverb This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved. From merope@Radix.Net Sun Jan 14 09:54:34 2001 Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 09:54:33 -0500 (EST) From: merope Reply-To: merope To: Daily Board Show Subject: Daily Board Show Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: We are not amused...its Your Daily Board Show! *warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk! Saturday 13 January 2001: Tim Stowell posts the following explanation of his posting of copyrighted material: "Back on 12/25 or so, I posted the ditty entitled - 'I Want' to this list. At the time I was unaware that there was a copyrighted but differently worded rendition on the web by a Ms. Brown. Ms. Brown sent me a note requesting that I give her credit for what I posted and claims copyright violation. Since what I posted was not her original work, I can not do that. I've asked the head of a writing center about this and was told that if any violation had occurred it would be on the part of my source. What I can do is explain the circumstances for my post. I attributed at the time of my post my source of the ditty. I had previously asked the permission of those folk to post the ditty giving them credit. I received that permission 15 Jan 2000...I don't 'check' the Internet to see if someone has copyrighted stuff before I post or pass along stuff I receive...Had I known of Ms. Brown's work, I would have not posted what I did." [You will note that not only does he refuse to properly credit Ms. Brown, he also does not apologize to her. And left unexplained is why it took him two weeks to get around to this.] Ginger Hayes notes that "A simple, "I was not aware of the copyright and received permission from the Parkhurst, please accept my apology" would have have taken care of the problem at the outset..." She also notes "Arrogance does not become you....or any of us, and certainly does nothing to further the standing of USGW." Tina Vickery agrees with Ginger and notes that Tim's behavior "did nothing to benefit the USGenWeb Project." Holly Timm also agrees with Ginger but finds it far worse that it took Tim nearly three weeks to respond to the complaint and when he did, he wrote as if he were the one who was injured. She notes "ANY acceptance of copyright violation be it legal or ethical does not belong in this project, most especially in its leadership." Ellen Pack joins in and says she's amazed to see a note from Tim that "appears to be rather defensive, yet at the same time displays so little concern for Ms. Browns predicament." She also wonders why a simple apology could not have sufficed, and notes "In any case, a three week delay in responding is indefensible. This should have been taken care of immediately." Sunday 14 January 2001: Tim calls for a vote on Motion 00-41, to appoint Esther Frye as Board Secretary [and no, the question about her qualifications for the job was never even acknowledged, much less answered.] Tim notifies the Board that a small committee has been formed, which consists of himself, Holly Timm, Joe Zsedeny, and John Schunk, to "to finalize the details of filling out the forms and finding resources to cover the costs of the process." Joe Zsedeny is the chair of this committee. === You're Only Guilty When You Get Caught Corner: Our metaphorically-challenged Esteemed National Coordinator has forwarded the "explanation" of his behavior to several lists, including Board-L, USGENWEB-ALL, NYGEN-L, and GAGEN-L [thanks to all who forwarded me copies]. He's been taken to task for it quite soundly: "Poppycock, Tim! I expected better from you. What you posted in December -was- essentially Ms Brown's copyright work. That was YOUR mistake. Your explanation does NOT excuse...Ignorance is no excuse. It is YOUR problem to verify copyright status before publication...The kinds of differences between the versions of the article DO NOT AFFECT the copyright status of Ms Brown's -original- creation. In fact, when you look at them, the changes to -her- work in what you posted blatantly signal a barely-disguised plagiarism, a knowing attempt to steal someone's work and claim it as their own...Instead of simply making amends for YOUR part in this ugly business, what I see in your message are excuses, a belittling of Ms Brown and her concern, and an attempt to shift ALL blame to someone else ... not terribly becoming behavior in a National Coordinator of a Internet Project. You set the example that all us CCs are expected to emulate. Your actions and inactions reflect on the whole organization. I become increasingly embarrased to put the USGWP logo on ANY of my pages." ---Wally Garchow "Tim is aware of the laws or at least he should be in this "business", ignorance is not bliss in today's world. We all are very aware of the Internet and how to use it...What is the worst part of this is that Tim ignored the Author, Ms. Brown and that is wrong. If he would have written and apologized to her, I suspect she would have accepted his regret of plagiarism and this would not be an issue." ---Kathy Heidel "Can't you simply give an apology and post a cite to a similar same article existing someplace else too ? I dont care who is who ,wrong is wrong ; but if its wrong just fix it and we are all better off for it" ---Dan Tim sent me a rebuttal to the DBS story yesterday. For the record, this is what he has to say for himself: "I had permission for what I posted. I didn't know of M$. Brown's work. To think people would 'check' before publishing anything is at best impractical. Brown had posted her rendition on Fidonet 4 years prior to slapping a copyright on her rendition. How many variations of her original post existed at that time, who knows?...bottom line I did not violate her copyright. I posted what I posted with the permission of the representative of the Journal previously mentioned. The words they used were not the same as Ms Brown's. If any copyright violation took place, it was not on my part for I attributed my source. If a violation took place it would be with my source." [You will note not only the utter disregard for USGW's own copyright policy which as NC he is supposed to uphold, but the belittling tone toward "M$" Brown who, as we recall, is the aggrieved party in this case. Her work, incidentally, was copyrighted the moment she wrote it.] Ms. Brown, the author of the post in question, has written to tell me that Tim did finally write to her personally. She says "He apologized - sorta - as in "I am sorry that you were offended by the sharing." And finally, a reader has written to remind us the courts take a rather dim view of the notion that "rewording and republishing" is a defense against copyright violation or that works that are similar but not identical do not constitute copyright violation. See for example "Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd.', a case which cost George Harrison millions of dollars after the courts determined that his song "My Sweet Lord" violated the copyright the Chiffons held on their song "He's So Fine". http://www.best.com:80/~abbeyrd/limit.html === "A man can build a staunch reputation for honesty by admitting he was in error, especially when he gets caught at it." ---Robert Ruark This has been your Daily Board Show. -Teresa Lindquist merope@radix.net ------- Daily Board Show, (c) 2001 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.